| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/14/2007 11:31:57 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
From the article:
"Cavender says he wears a press ID whenever he's working."
"The city of Wharton says Cavender was never paid by or a member of the fire department." |
And right before that first quote, again from the article, "...although they gave him an ID and a vest that said 'fire photographer.'"
So he definitely had the means to misrepresent himself.
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 11:33:48 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
We are talking about photographers who sometimes push the boundaries such as at accident scenes. Not old people at airports... |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
I don't worry much about the rights of the 'establishment'. I worry about individual people. |
The original discussion was about a photographer who (in a 291 word synopsis) is being accused of wrong doings. My comments were directed toward the fact that we as a community of photographers tend to side (blindly) with the photographer and to hell with the 'establisment'. In a perfect world, no one's rights would ever be violated. In the 'real' world, there is no way to protect 100% of everyone's rights/liberties. In the real world sometimes peoples toes get stepped on.
Originally posted by crayon:
on rare occasions, there are photographers who think they could get away with anything, disregarding other's privacy and dignity. from time to time, it is healthy for the system to teach these thin-line walkers a lesson. |
With only a 291 word synopsis of the OP's story I must say that to read this is refreshing. Is it right? I don't know. I am just tired of hearing that the community is wrong for protecting the community...
As much as I would like to continue this conversation, I must say this is probably my last post. I do not like being called names by those that are too small minded to believe that conservative values/ideas are intollerant...
|
|
|
|
02/14/2007 11:36:04 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by yanko:
And you know this how? |
I don't know much and never claimed I did. It did, however, 'appear' as if you had a purely legal interest in the matter, if what you posted is any indication:
Originally posted by yanko:
... I thought it was about a grand jury deciding that the prosecution's case had merit and should move forward. |
Message edited by author 2007-02-14 23:36:41. |
|
|
|
02/15/2007 12:06:13 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
From the article:
"Cavender says he wears a press ID whenever he's working."
"The city of Wharton says Cavender was never paid by or a member of the fire department." |
And right before that first quote, again from the article, "...although they gave him an ID and a vest that said 'fire photographer.'"
So he definitely had the means to misrepresent himself. |
Freelance or professional, the photographer was given access to the scene at the time of the incident and made photographs. Any police authority at the scene could have restricted the photographer for illegal picture making if that is the case. A determination that the pictures are illegal after the fact, is possible, but I suppose that would depend if some harm has occurred. From my own experience the police give access to media (official or not) on their own terms. The question of credentials given by a fire department or a press association is a joke. |
|
|
|
02/15/2007 12:11:44 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
And right before that first quote, again from the article, "...although they gave him an ID and a vest that said 'fire photographer.'" |
But it didn't mention if he was wearing it at the time, merely that he "always" carried his press credentials. |
|
|
|
02/15/2007 12:22:35 AM · #31 |
There is probably some missing information from this article. When a police officer is involved in something like this, especially where his/her death is involved, the police usually overreact to people on the scene, especially photographers. They are looking after 'one of their own.'
The credentials here are in question though. If the photographer did use 'fire photographer' credentials to gain access in an area where he would have not been allowed, he abused his privileges. If he shot the photos from outside the 'ropes', he did nothing wrong.
Police departments are often a huge roadblock for journalists. Lots of police officers believe they have some unwritten duty to protect the privacy of people who are involved in crimes, accidents, or other situations where law enforcement is required.
I expect that this case will be dropped. The event that happened was newsworthy, and the photographer didn't abuse the photos. He sold them to newspapers. I'm gonna follow the story and see what else happens with it...
|
|
|
|
02/15/2007 01:09:42 AM · #32 |
oops...
Message edited by author 2007-02-15 01:11:30.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2007 01:17:54 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
From the article:
"Cavender says he wears a press ID whenever he's working."
"The city of Wharton says Cavender was never paid by or a member of the fire department." |
And right before that first quote, again from the article, "...although they gave him an ID and a vest that said 'fire photographer.'"
So he definitely had the means to misrepresent himself. |
This is what I took away from the article. He had the means to misrepresent himself, though he claims he didn't. It's possible that the police, knowing that he sometimes works for the FD gave him access under assumption that he was working for the FD when in fact he wasn't. This is just theory on my part.
IF that it what happened, it was his responsibility to not accept the benefits that were allowed to him, though I think they would be hard-pressed to convict him of anything because he didn't actually represent himself as an FD employee.
All speculation on my part with the assumption that he is, in fact, innocent. |
|
|
|
02/15/2007 01:20:47 AM · #34 |
WOW! What a small world we live in. I grew up in the small town of Wharton, Texas.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2007 01:56:50 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
And right before that first quote, again from the article, "...although they gave him an ID and a vest that said 'fire photographer.'" |
But it didn't mention if he was wearing it at the time, merely that he "always" carried his press credentials. |
No, it didn't say anything either way. There's a lot of information missing. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
Message edited by author 2007-02-15 01:59:11.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2007 05:06:47 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by undieyatch:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
From the article:
"Cavender says he wears a press ID whenever he's working."
"The city of Wharton says Cavender was never paid by or a member of the fire department." |
And right before that first quote, again from the article, "...although they gave him an ID and a vest that said 'fire photographer.'"
So he definitely had the means to misrepresent himself. |
Freelance or professional, the photographer was given access to the scene at the time of the incident and made photographs. Any police authority at the scene could have restricted the photographer for illegal picture making if that is the case. A determination that the pictures are illegal after the fact, is possible, but I suppose that would depend if some harm has occurred. From my own experience the police give access to media (official or not) on their own terms. The question of credentials given by a fire department or a press association is a joke. |
The issue is not that the creation of the photographs was illegal. The question is whether, by presenting his fire department ID and wearing his "fire photographer" vest at the scene, he put himself "on duty." If he was on duty, even as a volunteer firefighter, or if he misused his fire department credentials to gain greater access to the scene than would otherwise be available to a press photographer, then it's more likely than not that he had no legal right to sell the photographs to a third party without the express authorization of the department.
As has been said before, we don't know all the facts.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
02/15/2007 05:09:25 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
And right before that first quote, again from the article, "...although they gave him an ID and a vest that said 'fire photographer.'" |
But it didn't mention if he was wearing it at the time, merely that he "always" carried his press credentials. |
Still, the point stands. He had the means to misrepresent himself. We don't know from the article presented whether he did or not. That may be a question for the court.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
02/15/2007 05:14:38 AM · #38 |
Originally posted by zeuszen:
To a Canadian and a cosmopolitan, like myself, it reads like a very foreign event, indeed - inconceivable, really. From my perspective, it appears that civil liberties and individual rights have been eroding at a steady pace in the US, not only after 9/11 under Bush but since the Reagan administration.
On the other hand, I know there is considerable opposition to this trend. This is why I doubt, it'll come to an indictment in this case. The arrest and charge alone are frightening signs, I, as a neighbour and frequent visitor, am very uncomfortable with. |
This is beyond the scope of this discussion. If you wish to discuss politicians not directly relevant to this case, then please start a thread in Rant to do so.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
02/15/2007 07:31:10 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by crayon:
even though as someone who enjoys photography, i also felt that on rare occasions, there are photographers who think they could get away with anything, disregarding other's privacy and dignity. from time to time, it is healthy for the system to teach these thin-line walkers a lesson.
crayon |
That's just a ridiculous statement! So you are saying it's ok for the US Courts to teach a photog a lesson even though he broke no law?
I refer to my original statement... "That's just pure Assholery!" |
|
|
|
02/15/2007 07:58:22 AM · #40 |
Doing a Google search on Elmer's name produces quite a few articles of which this is one:
"Ronald K. Sanders - Texas Department of Public Safety had decided it wonât return negatives and photographs seized from a freelance photographer used by the Wharton Journal-Spectator.
The photos were taken at a Wharton accident in which Needville ISD police Chief Ernest Mendoza was killed. The other driver, suspected to be intoxicated, was arrested for murder and failing to stop and render aid. The case is expected to go to the grand jury in March.
Elmer Cavender, the photographer, was also âfiredâ this week as the official photographer of the Wharton Volunteer Fire Department.
DPS, in a statement issued Friday afternoon, claimed that Cavender âvoluntarilyâ turned over the photos to DPS troopers Danny Terronez and Royce Korenek.
DPS spokesman Tom Vinger in Austin issued the following: âElmer Cavender voluntarily provided the photos to the department. They are now part of an ongoing criminal investigation and cannot legally be released. Any questions on the status of the photos should be directed to the 329th Judicial District Attorney's Office.
Cavender claims he received an offer he could not refuse: turn them over or be arrested.
On Monday morning, Cavender was forced to return to Fire Chief Anthony Abbott his reflective vest, which said âfire photographerâ on the back, as well as a photo identification card issued by the fire department, he said.
Two days earlier, the two troopers seized the prints and negatives.
Terronez said, âElmer did voluntarily give the photos and negatives to Trooper Korenek.â However, Terronez added, âit was explained to Elmer that he did have an option to refuse.â
The Journal-Spectator, which owns the negatives and prints, has demanded from DPSâ Austin headquarters that the negatives and prints be returned. The newspaper editors are considering legal action, alleging troopers Terronez and Royce Korenek overstepped legal bounds.
Lawmen and District Attorney Josh McCown were angered at Cavender after he showed the photos to several people. Cavender said he regrets he did so."
Message edited by author 2007-02-15 07:59:46. |
|
|
|
02/15/2007 01:21:11 PM · #41 |
Here's the jest of it all:
The Texas Department of Public Safety contends Cavender abused his position as the Wharton VFD's photographer - which arguably grants him special access to emergency scenes - to take photos for non-official purposes.
Misuse of official information, a third-degree felony indictment, carries with it a punishment range from probation to 10 years in prison and the potential for a fine up to $10,000.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2007 02:02:16 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by zeuszen:
To a Canadian and a cosmopolitan, like myself, it reads like a very foreign event, indeed - inconceivable, really. From my perspective, it appears that civil liberties and individual rights have been eroding at a steady pace in the US, not only after 9/11 under Bush but since the Reagan administration.
On the other hand, I know there is considerable opposition to this trend. This is why I doubt, it'll come to an indictment in this case. The arrest and charge alone are frightening signs, I, as a neighbour and frequent visitor, am very uncomfortable with. |
This is beyond the scope of this discussion. If you wish to discuss politicians not directly relevant to this case, then please start a thread in Rant to do so.
~Terry |
I have no interest whatsoever in discussing politicians, despite the fact that I happened to name two presidents to establish a time-line. While you are of course free to make assumptions, I can find neither cause nor advantage in denying the discussion a context. |
|
|
|
02/15/2007 04:47:16 PM · #43 |
It seems like this guy has a reputation following him. He may or may not get off the hook.
If he is abusing his credentials, he should be penalized. People like him make life difficult for people who do have proper credentials.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2007 04:57:40 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by tooohip:
Originally posted by crayon:
even though as someone who enjoys photography, i also felt that on rare occasions, there are photographers who think they could get away with anything, disregarding other's privacy and dignity. from time to time, it is healthy for the system to teach these thin-line walkers a lesson.
crayon |
That's just a ridiculous statement! So you are saying it's ok for the US Courts to teach a photog a lesson even though he broke no law?
I refer to my original statement... "That's just pure Assholery!" |
I am rather intrigued by what exactly it is you find ridiculous about the comments made. Is it not conceivable that perhaps on occasion some photographers committed a transgression.
As an aside, I find it amusing that you would refer to your original statement as pure "assholery" :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
02/15/2007 05:14:02 PM · #45 |
Sorry to butt in US events. But, as I see things, he has Fire Department ID which allows him access to major events that the FD attend.
As a photog he is there to take pictures, He did this and happened to take a photo of a dead Police Chief. It doesn't state whether he had full authority to use these photos as he wished. According to the Police, he doesn't?
So, if he took pictures of a fire, that was okay?
Pictures of a dead policeman, not okay? Same event, no creeping through undergrowth, open with ID. Where is the crime? |
|
|
|
02/15/2007 05:22:29 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by formerlee:
Where is the crime? |
The allegation seems to be that he used his FD credentials to access a crime scene that he would not have had access to as a freelance photographer. That would not be a problem, had he actually been photographing the scene for the FD, however, he was not, he was working in his role as a freelance news photographer and then sold the images, obtained by fraud, to the paper.
The alleged crime is in pretending to be working for the FD, while actually working for himself.
Message edited by author 2007-02-15 17:24:01.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2007 05:40:43 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Originally posted by formerlee:
Where is the crime? |
The allegation seems to be that he used his FD credentials to access a crime scene that he would not have had access to as a freelance photographer. That would not be a problem, had he actually been photographing the scene for the FD, however, he was not, he was working in his role as a freelance news photographer and then sold the images, obtained by fraud, to the paper.
The alleged crime is in pretending to be working for the FD, while actually working for himself. |
Okay. |
|
|
|
02/15/2007 06:19:12 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I am rather intrigued by what exactly it is you find ridiculous about the comments made. Is it not conceivable that perhaps on occasion some photographers committed a transgression.
As an aside, I find it amusing that you would refer to your original statement as pure "assholery" :O)
Ray |
I find it ridiculous for someone to say that a photographer should be punished by the United States legal system for doing something others may find morally offensive, or rude.
If he didn't break a law, then he shouldn't be penalized and what I found ridiculous was just that.
Now, since I or we do not know the entire story, I can't claim the guy is innocent, but if he is, then it's "Ridiculous" to suggest he should still be punished.
On a side note, my statement that it's pure assholery, is just pure assholery!
LOL!
Message edited by author 2007-02-15 18:19:45. |
|
|
|
02/15/2007 06:30:54 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by tooohip:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
I am rather intrigued by what exactly it is you find ridiculous about the comments made. Is it not conceivable that perhaps on occasion some photographers committed a transgression.
As an aside, I find it amusing that you would refer to your original statement as pure "assholery" :O)
Ray |
I find it ridiculous for someone to say that a photographer should be punished by the United States legal system for doing something others may find morally offensive, or rude.
If he didn't break a law, then he shouldn't be penalized and what I found ridiculous was just that.
Now, since I or we do not know the entire story, I can't claim the guy is innocent, but if he is, then it's "Ridiculous" to suggest he should still be punished.
On a side note, my statement that it's pure assholery, is just pure assholery!
LOL! |
FYI... In the United States, he is innocent of all accused crimes until a jury convicts him or he pleads guilty !!!! So, it is fair to claim he is innocent until this is all said & done..
I do wonder how many times the police chief himself along with the entire police department saw this photog at certain accident or crime scenes, then noticed in the local paper that pictures have now been published and bothered to find out if those sold pictures were obtained legally or with consent. I'd be willing to bet this wasn't the very first crime scene he's photographed and why weren't those photo's cause for criminal charges. I also wonder if the publisher of the paper is being charged with any crime for buying alleged illegally obtained photograph's..
It will be very interesting to see where this leads. Sounds like it's going to come down to his word against those who say he misuesed his authority as a F.D photographer.
|
|
|
|
02/15/2007 07:05:27 PM · #50 |
From the Fort Bend Herald, February 13, 2007,
"Cavender, 64, faces a count of misuse of official information in Wharton County for taking pictures of an automobile accident scene on Jan. 19 and selling those photos to several newspapers. That accident claimed the life of Needville ISD Police Chief Ernest Mendoza.
The Texas Department of Public Safety contends Cavender abused his position as the Wharton VFD's photographer - which arguably grants him special access to emergency scenes - to take photos for non-official purposes.
Ron Sanders, editor of the Wharton Journal-Spectator, said the charge against Cavender amounts to "nothing other than harassment."
Misuse of official information, a third-degree felony indictment, carries with it a punishment range from probation to 10 years in prison and the potential for a fine up to $10,000."
Its very simple, if a crime scene photographer, who is allowed special access to a crime scene to process it, then sold those photos, he/she would face the same charges. The accusation is that he used his credentials to gain access to a crime scene (Cop or not) and then sold the pics. This gives the defense and opening to argue that the scene was contaminated and maybe the murderer of a human being (Cop or not), might go free. Now if it is brought up they (the prosecutors) have an arguement to place in front of a jury so they will know the crime scene was indeed secure to outside persons and that he misused his position.
Whether or not they can prove it is what the court system is all about.
Message edited by author 2007-02-15 19:06:36. |
|
